BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: zhao150 on October 30, 2014, 09:29:56 am
-
how to deal with pts and ags after 11.05?
nobody mine pts then pts will dead.
btc38.com stop trade the pts then pts will dead.
BM kill the pts and ags.
BM also kill the ptser and agser' heart.
am I right?
BM killed the pts and ags!
nobody will trust 3i,nobody will donation 3i!
why?
just look at the ptser and agser!
-
What do you mean "kill the heat" ?
-
What do you mean "kill the heat" ?
he meant heart
-
What do you mean "kill the heat" ?
he meant heart
yes
-
First of all BM didn't kill anyone or anything .. not even the banks :D
Secondly, AGS and PTS will live on after that snapshot .. 3rd party developers are still supposed to snapshot from those ..
Thirdly .. if YOU lose money it's YOUR OWN FAULT! .. no one forced you to invest in highly speculative markets!
-
Exactly. As AGS holder I feel disappointment from the BTSX snapshot. After that date new investors are basically used for pumping BTSX. VOTE and DNS was nothing but shame. Our only hope is BitShares Music.
-
Exactly. As AGS holder I feel disappointment from the BTSX snapshot. After that date new investors are basically used for pumping BTSX. VOTE and DNS was nothing but shame. Our only hope is BitShares Music.
I understand none of your three sentences .. maybe my fault :-\
-
Dammit I wrote a nice thing about how Dan probably doesn't exactly want to do this but has been pushed in this direction.
PTS will live on just fine. It doesn't really matter much, we can route around issues and make it more decentralized before. (Along with BTS)
We just need to rebuild a community that is based around multiple DACs. The code is still there and available.
-
I support multiple dacs in the community, I just cannot work on multiple dacs.
-
I think people need to come to terms with the notion that there are other very skilled and creative developers out there besides BM. There's no doubt BM is a great coder but other DAC's and projects can succeed without him. In fact I would even go so far as to say other DAC's and projects NEED to succeed without him. This new ecosystem cannot sit on one man's shoulders and still be called a success.
-
nobody will mine pts after 11.05
btc38.com stop trade the pts after11.05
BM you should think a way to protection PTS.if not PTS wil dead
-
Testz and others are on it.
-
I support multiple dacs in the community, I just cannot work on multiple dacs.
And if someone managed to keep PTS and DNS going after 11.5 , will they have your blessing ?
-
3i should protection PTS. not others!
because if have 10 people develop 10 new PTSs.
which one will the true new PTS?
-
Why would the want BM's "belssing"? Would you care about Litecoin having BM's blessing?
-
nobody will mine pts after 11.05
btc38.com stop trade the pts after11.05
BM you should think a way to protection PTS.if not PTS wil dead
Last I heard, AlphaBar was working on a DPOS replacement for PTS.
-
3i should do DPOS,not others
not AlphaBar.
not me.
-
3i should do DPOS,not others
not AlphaBar.
not me.
alphaBar has expressed an interest to upgrade PTS with a team. He sees PTS DPOS as a bitshare spin-off that would bring positive energies to both BTS and a future for PTS. BM and I3 could provide some help to this PTS DPOS team so that they can stand on their feet. This would bring benefits to PTS holders, beyond the 5th Nov snapshot. And I3 would be proud to see a truly independent offspring from its open-source work. Would you like to see such a future?
-
I support multiple dacs in the community, I just cannot work on multiple dacs.
Dan, PTS is ill-suited to serve as a sharedrop instrument with the Bitshares Trust owning 13.5% of the money supply. I need you to make a good faith effort to address this by agreeing to a reasonable voluntary divestment strategy. I've outlined my proposal here - https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=10701.0. We'd be setting ourselves up for failure if we ignored this issue...
-
All in this post is 100% true, if you do not believe me I can provide pictures.
I have a 15 year old car. It is not running...it needs repairs for about $750 to make it run to begin with(that was when it stopped moving, now it is probably 3x more). Its sell price is about that much ($750) if I am lucky. I am also paying $49/mo. in insurance, $120/y for license plates and $45/y for city sticker. It takes space in my driveway and makes everything more hard especially in the winter. I live in a place that sees a lot of snow, and my driveway is big only by New York standards.
Now, tell me that I am smart, to have kept and to continue to keep that car in that condition (and spot) for the last 3 years.
-
3i should do DPOS,not others
not AlphaBar.
not me.
The whole point of the consolidation/merger is that bytemaster and 3i can't do everything, and can't answer to everyone. If they fixed PTS and made it what we want, then they'd be neglecting BTSX, and a different group of shareholders would get loud. PTS and BTSX in some regards, are in direct competition with each other. The consolidation is an effort made so that all incentives can be aligned in the future. Its unfortunate that this decision couldn't please anybody, but look at it this way - the people who got burned today would eventually get neglected in the future. The same group would be demanding for bytemasters time and attention, and the only way to give that would be to neglect a different project. We want to compete with the world, not the existing community, because its still not big enough.
-
3i should do DPOS,not others
not AlphaBar.
not me.
The whole point of the consolidation/merger is that bytemaster and 3i can't do everything, and can't answer to everyone. If they fixed PTS and made it what we want, then they'd be neglecting BTSX, and a different group of shareholders would get loud. PTS and BTSX in some regards, are in direct competition with each other. The consolidation is an effort made so that all incentives can be aligned in the future. Its unfortunate that this decision couldn't please anybody, but look at it this way - the people who got burned today would eventually get neglected in the future. The same group would be demanding for bytemasters time and attention, and the only way to give that would be to neglect a different project. We want to compete with the world, not the existing community, because its still not big enough.
+5%
-
3i should do DPOS,not others
not AlphaBar.
not me.
The whole point of the consolidation/merger is that bytemaster and 3i can't do everything, and can't answer to everyone. If they fixed PTS and made it what we want, then they'd be neglecting BTSX, and a different group of shareholders would get loud. PTS and BTSX in some regards, are in direct competition with each other. The consolidation is an effort made so that all incentives can be aligned in the future. Its unfortunate that this decision couldn't please anybody, but look at it this way - the people who got burned today would eventually get neglected in the future. The same group would be demanding for bytemasters time and attention, and the only way to give that would be to neglect a different project. We want to compete with the world, not the existing community, because its still not big enough.
Respectfully, I cannot disagree more strongly with this assessment. The idea that a bare-bones DPOS chain would “compete directly” with BTS is just plain wrong. I see a complete reversal of strategy happening on this forum and, frankly, it is frightening. We’ve abandoned the “open platform” model of the Bitshares Toolkit in favor of protectionism and centralization. Bytemaster is a smart dude, but the assumption that any innovative idea must have his blessing and must consume his limited resource is just plain wrong. Why should we sink or swim on the basis of a single DAC? The original vision of the Bitshares Toolkit was collaborative and open. 3rd party developers would be encouraged to fork the toolkit and to innovate. Now it seems that we’ve reverted to the very model that Dan campaigned against in the Bitcoin space - that one chain would eventually rule them all. What is the price of all this protectionism? Even if it were true that individual DACs would indirectly compete in the marketplace, why do we assume that this is some sort of a “failure”?
I understand that Dan himself, as an individual, cannot work on competing alternatives. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not to position the Toolkit as an open platform for innovation by 3rd party DACs. When I hear people calling for an end to PTS and AGS, it signals to me that we’ve abandoned this vision. Dan doesn’t need to personally develop each DAC, but I think he can do certain things to keep the platform open and to incentivize development by third parties. For example:
* Keep and promote PTS and AGS as sharedrop instruments for future DACs. (Thank you for the recent change of position on this.)
* Create a reasonable and voluntary divestment strategy for the Bitshares Trust to ensure that 3rd party DACs are incentivized to sharedrop for a fair and balanced distribution.
* Either contribute to, or promote the efforts of others who wish to separate the core DPOS code base from DAC-specific applications such as BTSX, DNS, and Vote. Separating the code base would go a long way towards incentivizing 3rd party development. Not only is this good practice from an engineering perspective, but it lowers the barrier to entry for the developer who has an idea for “the next great DAC”.
If a superior technology is built on the Toolkit, then as shareholders of AGS and PTS we would greatly benefit from it. Pushing 3rd party devs and DACs away from the platform will not prevent the existence of competing alternatives to BTS. More than likely it just ensure that those alternatives are built elsewhere and that we as a community do not benefit from them.
-
BM killed the pts and ags!
nobody will trust 3i,nobody will donation 3i!
why?
just look at the ptser and agser!
-
AGS cannot be 'killed' because it's a public receipt of donations for development. PTS will continue to live after 11.05. Aren't I3 salaries are securitized in PTS, too?
-
AGS cannot be 'killed' because it's a public receipt of donations for development. PTS will continue to live after 11.05. Aren't I3 salaries are securitized in PTS, too?
Yeah, but instead of 10% of all future DACs, PTS and AGS will now be getting 7% of 10% or... 0.7%. That's I think the biggest blow to the PTS/AGS holders. That of course is countered by the fact that they get to have a bunch of BTS thrown at them.
While I agree with the change, it is perceived by many as an abuse of power, and makes people question what else might change in the future.
I think it is a step in the right direction, but can't say I am happy with how it was achieved.
-
Why 7% of 10%? PTS hasn't gone anywhere. If a DAC wants to air drop 10% PTS they still can.
-
Why 7% of 10%? PTS hasn't gone anywhere. If a DAC wants to air drop 10% PTS they still can.
Exactly. And it's already happening: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=848182.0;all
All this FUD about PTS/AGS death is getting old
-
Why 7% of 10%? PTS hasn't gone anywhere. If a DAC wants to air drop 10% PTS they still can.
Exactly. And it's already happening: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=848182.0;all
All this FUD about PTS/AGS death is getting old
You can't be serious. :)